Cellect launches lawsuit against makers of Crocs

Monday

Mar 24, 2008 at 12:01 AMMar 24, 2008 at 4:41 AM

Cellect is launching a lawsuit against the maker of a popular shoe for allegedly infringing on a patent of Cellect, the only company in America of its kind, which makes specialty foam products for automotive, medical devices, consumer products and military and industrial applications.

Dana C. Silano

Cellect is launching a lawsuit against the maker of a popular shoe for allegedly infringing on a patent of Cellect, the only company in America of its kind, which makes specialty foam products for automotive, medical devices, consumer products and military and industrial applications.

According to Cellect CEO Scott Smith, the company announced Tuesday that it had filed a suit against Crocs in the Northern District Federal Court of New York in Utica. “The suit alleges patent infringement of a polymer blend patent, U.S. Patent 5,932,659, by Crocs’ shoe products,” Smith said. “The patent was issued on August 3, 1999.”

Smith said that Cellect owns the exclusive rights to over 15 patents throughout the world. The patent referenced in the Crocs law suit involves the blending and cross-linking of polyolefin elastomers with single site initiated polyolefin resins. These single site initiated polyolefin resins, sometimes referred to as “metallocene resins,” were introduced to the plastics’ market in or about 1996, and Cellect’s technology portfolio includes the use of these resins to manufacture flexible foams that replace conventional rubber elastomers in a variety of applications.

In layman’s terms, Smith re-iterated, the company came up with a process allowing a certain oil and water to mix in a way that creates a better foam plastic with rubber qualities

Smith said he hopes that more people, including members of larger companies, do not underestimate Cellect because of its setting in a small upstate New York community. “I’m very proud of this company. It’s been through a lot,” he said, referencing the flood of 2006 and recent renovations, as well as a grant announced in January for Restore NY. “The workforce we have is second to none here in upstate New York. I’ve hear other companies imply that our area employs ‘rock farmers’ and ‘hillbillies,’ and I’m very sensitive to that. What we embrace here are typical, hardworking Americans that should be recognized for making a living, and that is very far from being a hillbilly. Cellect’s technology, including that very patent, was created here in upstate New York in St. Johnsville — in this local community.”

Smith also said he thinks that there is potential for a forthcoming re-surge in manufacturing, citing that companies as global as China are seeking product from Cellect. “Since 1998, Cellect has continued to invest in our technology and manufacturing facilities for the development of proprietary processing of cross-linked polyolefin foam,” Smith said. “It has been our preference to license our technologies to strategic partners to create value. We attempted to open discussions with Crocs in an amicable manner prior to filing this lawsuit but we were unable to get a satisfactory response and are forced to bring this litigation to protect our intellectual property.”

Cellect has retained Jan Conlin, of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., to represent the company in the litigation with Crocs.

Conlin represents companies nationwide, such as Pitney Bowes, General Electric and Estee Lauder, on patent-infringement cases.

She has helped companies to win or settle multi-million dollar cases.

Conlin was unavailable for comment at press time.

Stephanie Koon, spokesperson for Crocs, did return a phone call to The Evening Times, saying, “The company has not been served with the law suit papers, so we have no comment at this time.”

Koon said she was not sure what direction the company would take after receiving the paperwork.

A history of the company, located on its website, states, “We have expanded our product line, added warehouses and shipping programs for speedy assembly and delivery, hired a senior management team and acquired Foam Creations.”

Eric Peterson, of Colorado Biz Today, said in a recent article, “Competitors allege that Crocs’ own litigious tactics are nothing more than a ruse to cover up the fact that the company’s patents are not valid and never were; that patent-infringement litigation is merely a stalling tactic; and that company officials misrepresented the product’s origins to quash competition in an emerging multi-billion-dollar product category, in the process violating the Sherman Antitrust Act.”

There is no mention of the law suit on any of the press releases, news or information on the site.

According to 24/7 Wall Street, Crocs had at least five pending lawsuits against other companies for copyright or patent infringement.

Crocs has three weeks to respond to the lawsuit filed against them. The suit will seek relief in monetary form, equity, or by law.